Airports: Manchester and Stansted

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I am today publishing my decisions on whether Manchester and Stansted airports should remain designated for the purposes of price control under Section 40 of the Airports Act 1986. My decisions follow advice from the independent aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), on these airports and two public consultations. My department's analysis has also been peer reviewed by Professor Martin Cave, director of the Centre for Management Under Regulation, at Warwick Business School, whose comments I am publishing alongside my decisions. My predecessor previously consulted on and announced new criteria for deciding whether or not an airport should be designated.
	At Manchester, having carefully considered the responses from the consultation, I have concluded that Manchester airport does not have and is not likely to acquire substantial market power. I therefore intend to de-designate Manchester airport and will introduce the necessary legislative changes.
	At Stansted, the decision is more finely balanced. After careful consideration, I have concluded that Stansted meets all of the criteria for designation, and should continue to be designated.
	The airports in the south-east are now operating at almost full capacity. This is bad for passengers in terms of delays, congestion and lack of choice, and it is also damaging to the UK's productivity and growth. This is why we support a second runway at Stansted and are consulting on adding capacity at Heathrow, while satisfying strict local environmental conditions on noise and air quality. I am therefore asking the CAA to continue to protect passengers by setting price caps at Stansted until new capacity is delivered, or until further evidence emerges from the ongoing Competition Commission review.
	In making my decision on Stansted, I am aware of the comments made by a number of the respondents on the costs of the current approach to price controls at Stansted. The structure of price controls is a matter for the regulator, but my decision is not intended to constrain the CAA from adopting other approaches which meet its statutory duties while avoiding some of the costs of the current system that respondents have identified.
	I have today published on my department's website decision letters setting out in full the rationale for my decisions, and Professor Cave's peer review comments. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Armed Forces: Compensation Schemes

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	We previously announced on 11 October 2007 (Official Report, col. 42WS) the outcome, subject to consultation, of a review of the multiple injury lump-sum element of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the scheme's intent of focusing benefit on the most seriously injured was being delivered. The consultation has now concluded and I am pleased to confirm that the rule will be amended so that in future those who qualify for 100 per cent of the guaranteed income payment (GIP), who are by definition the most seriously injured, will receive 100 per cent of the surplus payable of all injuries sustained in a single incident, up to a maximum of £285,000. Those who do not qualify for 100 per cent GIP payments will continue to have the current discounting rule applied to their multiple injuries. This does not affect injuries sustained in separate incidents as these are already paid at the full tariff value of the injury.
	The new rule applies to those whose injuries are sustained on or after the legislation comes into force. Cases whose multiple injuries were sustained between 6 April 2005 (the start of the scheme) and the date the new rule comes into force and who qualify for 100 per cent GIP will, exceptionally, have an additional benefit paid to bring them to the same level as those who have the new rule applied.
	The AFCS is still relatively new. While a full review of the scheme will be undertaken after five years of operation, we will continue to monitor the scheme in order to identify areas where evidence supports the need for further changes before then. The amendments to the legislation will be laid before Parliament on Wednesday 16 January to put the new rule in place on 8 February. Service personnel whose claims have already been processed and who are entitled to the additional payment will receive their extra money as soon as possible thereafter.

Regional Spatial Strategies

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Parmjit Dhanda) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is today publishing the phase 1 revision to the regional spatial strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands. It follows the public examination in January 2007 and the proposed changes published in September.
	The majority of the consultation responses were supportive of the proposed changes and the Secretary of State is therefore pleased to confirm them with some minor amendments. The final revision includes:
	new policies to define broad areas for regeneration and growth in the Black Country, a new policy which replaces Dudley with Brierley Hill/Merry Hill as a strategic centre,a new policy to emphasise the importance of transforming the environment, and revisions to the transport priorities to reflect the current status of transport proposals in the Black Country.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has today written to the WMRA with the final phase 1 revision together with a summary of responses and schedule of changes.
	Copies of the relevant documents are available on the internet and in the Libraries of both Houses and have been provided for all of the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.
	The more extensive phase 2 revision to the West Midlands RSS is also under way. This covers revisions to housing and employment policies and the draft submission from the West Midlands Regional Assembly is currently being consulted on.

Russia: British Council

Lord Malloch-Brown: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I made clear in my Written Ministerial Statement on 13 December, and again in Oral Questions on 8 January, that the Russian Government's threatened action against the British Council in Russia was illegal, and that the British Council intended to remain open and operational in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. The British Council has done so.
	I regret to inform the House that, on 14 January, the Russian authorities informed the British Ambassador in Moscow that Russia intends to take a series of administrative measures against the British Council. These include tax measures against the British Council in St Petersburg and visa restrictions against British Council staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. Russia has further stated that it may take further action against the British Council in Moscow, including visa restrictions against UK diplomatic staff. Such threats can only make matters worse. It is not in the interests of either the UK or Russia for flourishing cultural, educational and scientific links to be held hostage to unrelated issues in this way.
	As the Government have repeatedly made clear to the Russian authorities, the British Council's activities in St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and across Russia are fully compliant both with Russian and international law, under the Vienna Conventions. Its presence and activities are also specifically sanctioned by a 1994 UK/Russia Agreement on Co-operation in Education, Science and Culture, signed by Russia.
	The Government will consider these latest actions by Russia carefully and will continue to engage with our international partners on them. We will respond to the Russian Government shortly. I will continue to keep the House informed of developments.

School Teachers' Review Body

Lord Adonis: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Part I of the seventeenth report of the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) is being published today, covering a range of matters referred to them in March 2007. I am grateful for the thorough attention the STRB has given to these matters. Copies of the report and of my detailed response to it are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office, the Libraries of the House and at www.teachernet.gov.uk/pay.
	The STRB has made recommendations for values of pay scales, spines and allowances, including leadership group pay covering three years from September 2008 to August 2010. It has recommended a 2.45 per cent increase from September 2008 and has made recommendations that would give teachers further increases of 2.3 per cent from September 2009 and 2010.
	I very much welcome the framework of predictability that these three-year recommendations will give, which will assist long-term strategic decision-making by local authorities and schools. The multi-year figures and processes proposed by the STRB provide an approach which is in accordance with the Government's stated policy on public sector pay, which is for awards that are consistent with the achievement of the CPI inflation target of 2 per cent, are affordable, represent value for money for taxpayers and reflect the labour market position of workforces.
	As regards schools in England, the 2.1 per cent minimum funding guarantee which was announced in the school funding settlement on 12 November 2007 is based on a cautious and realistic assessment of the wide range of cost pressures schools will face both from pay and non-pay.
	I am therefore confident that these figures will be manageable over the next three-year period.
	I propose therefore to accept the STRB's recommendation of a 2.45 per cent award payable from September 2008, and to accept the figures of 2.3 per cent from September 2009 and September 2010 which it has indicated in its report. Consistent with its report, I propose to set the STRB a remit in the course of 2008 to enable it to ensure that the increases it has proposed for 2009 and 2010 continue to be appropriate in the light of latest recruitment and retention data and wider economic and labour market conditions. I should however make clear that it is my firm view at this stage that the increases set out in the recommendations in relation to 2009-11 are the right ones. There would need to be clear evidence of a significant and material change in these factors to justify any change to these figures. The STRB would also need to take into account the fact that schools' budgets will have been set assuming the current figures.
	The STRB's recommendations also include enhancements to the salaries of some categories of teacher in inner and outer London and it recommends that there should be a review over a longer timescale of the current regional pay bands. I also propose to accept these recommendations.
	The review body has also made recommendations on the unqualified teachers' pay scale. These are detailed and technical matters on which I would like to take the views of consultees before proposing how these matters should be resolved. My detailed response contains further information on both these issues.
	Annexe to Written Ministerial Statement of 15 January 2008
	School Teachers' Review Body recommendations and response from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls)
	The following sets out the full set of recommendations from the School Teachers' Review Body and was published in the seventeenth report part 1 (Cm 7252) on 15 January 2008, together with the response from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The STRB's recommendations below are in bold.
	: Part 1 of the seventeenth report of the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) is being published today. It covers a range of matters referred to the STRB in March 2007. Copies are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of the House and at www.teachernet.gov.uk/pay. The second part is expected later this year.
	In making its recommendations, the STRB was required to have regard to items a to g set out in the remit letter of 29 March 2007. Part 1 of the seventeenth report covers the main pay award for 2008-09, provides an indicative award for 2009-11 and makes recommendations related to unqualified teachers' pay arrangements. I am grateful for the thorough attention the STRB has given to these matters. I am inviting comments on the STRB's report and my response to its recommendations by 11 February 2008.
	Teachers' pay from September 2008
	The STRB has recommended the following:
	I am grateful to the STRB for this set of recommendations on teachers' pay, covering the period from September 2008 to August 2011, and which I propose to accept. I very much welcome the framework of predictability that these recommendations will give, which will assist long-term strategic decision-making by local authorities and schools. The multi-year figures and processes proposed by the STRB provide an approach which is in accordance with the Government's stated policy on public sector pay, which is for awards that are consistent with the achievement of the CPS inflation target of 2 per cent, are affordable, represent value for money for taxpayers and reflect the labour market position of workforces.
	This is the first of the public sector pay awards for 2008 and beyond. These recommendations for teachers' pay for the coming three-year period increase the capacity to focus on service delivery by providing stability and certainty for staff and employers alike. In addition to supporting public service delivery, appropriate multi-year pay settlements support the Government's goal of entrenching economic stability by holding down inflation expectations and locking in moderate earnings growth over the medium term.
	As regards schools in England, I am also confident that these figures will be manageable over the next three-year period within the minimum funding guarantee of 2.1 per cent, which was announced in the school funding settlement on 12 November 2007. The minimum funding guarantee is based on a cautious and realistic assessment of the wide range of cost pressures schools will face from both pay and non-pay.
	I propose therefore to accept the STRB's recommendation of a 2.45 per cent award payable from September 2008, and to accept the figures of 2.3 per cent from September 2009 and September 2010 which it has indicated in its report. Consistent with its report, I propose to set the STRB a remit in the course of 2008 to enable it to ensure that the increases it has proposed for 2009 and 2010 continue to be appropriate in the light of latest recruitment and retention data and wider economic and labour market conditions. I should however make clear that it is my firm view at this stage that the increases set out in the recommendations in relation to 2009-11 are the right ones. There would need to be clear evidence of a significant and material change in these factors to justify any change to these figures. The STRB would also need to take into account the fact that schools' budgets will have been set assuming the current figures.
	We will also need to consider with the STRB some practicalities as regards the timing of a report following such a review, as the date proposed (June 2009) would not allow enough time for changes to be implemented by September 2009.
	Starting Salaries and the Four Pay Bands
	The STRB has recommended the following:
	I welcome this recommendation, which recognises that a review of the four pay areas covering England and Wales would be valuable. The timescale proposed is also helpful and allows time for careful and considered study of the situation. There would be a number of issues to resolve, including in respect of the STRB's suggestion that future banding could be non-static (picking up an aspect of broader proposals in its thirteenth report part 21). I shall take careful note of any immediate reactions expressed by consultees on these recommendations in relation to this current consultation. I shall also want to take into account in due course the views of the Welsh Assembly Government in respect of their own funding arrangements.
	The STRB has further recommended:
	I note the STRB's recommendation for certain revisions in advance of a review of the structure of the four pay bands. I note its view that a revision is needed to the first point on the main pay scale (Ml) for teachers in inner and outer London, with consequential adjustments to points M2 and M3 on that scale. I also note its recommendations for enhancements in these same areas to the value of each of the three points on the upper pay scale.
	I appreciate that the STRB has sought to make recommendations which would lead to the minimum starting salary, in areas where recruitment is generally more competitive, being set at an eye-catching rate over the next three years. I propose to accept these recommendations. As regards the upper pay scale, I consider that it is important for the rewards attached to becoming a post-threshold teacher to be maintained year-on-year and so I propose to accept these recommendations also. DCSF will make available additional funding through a specific grant to cover the increased cost to London authorities of implementing the STRB recommendations on London pay. Our aim is that from 2011-12 this grant will be mainstreamed into the DSG.
	Further pay matters
	The STRB has recommended the following:
	I welcome and propose to accept the STRB's recommendations in respect of the leadership group spine, the spine for advanced skills teachers, and the rises proposed for SEN allowances and TLR payments, as described. I believe it is appropriate that these are consistent with the recommendations for main and upper pay scale teachers over the next three years.
	As regards the salary of excellent teachers appointed or in the staffing structure on or after September 2008, I am pleased now to be able to take forward the recommendation originally made by the STRB in its fifteenth report2 that there should be pay ranges for this category of teacher from which relevant bodies select a spot salary. Providing salary ranges for excellent teachers will give schools the flexibility they need to set appropriate spot rates which take into account the job weighting of excellent teacher posts compared with other teachers in the staffing structure. Now that criteria for relevant bodies to select an appropriate spot salary from within the range have been developed3, ranges can be introduced. I welcome the general principle that the minimum of the range in September 2008 should be the current spot salary for England and Wales with a 2.45 per cent uplift. I also agree that in September 2008 the maximum of the range, and the maximum figure for inner London, should be on the basis of the original proposals of £45,000 and £50,000, updated (as would have been appropriate) with the application of the 2.5 per cent uplifts which were generally applicable in 2006 and 2007, plus the 2008 uplift of 2.45 per cent, leading to the figures set out in this report, which I propose to accept.
	I believe there is a need to reflect further on the position of teachers who have been or will be appointed to excellent teacher posts before September 2008, or where excellent teacher posts are already in the staffing structure, with published salaries. These posts are currently paid a spot salary with no discretion for variation. In view of the changes to salary arrangements for excellent teachers outlined above, my view is that rather than applying a set increase to existing posts, it may be more appropriate for schools to reassess the salaries of any such excellent teachers and determine a spot salary on the range in line with the criteria which will be generally applicable. This would also promote clarity and fairness. I should also mention that if in these circumstances the reassessment led to a lower spot salary, then appropriate safeguarding arrangements would need to apply, in line with the specified criteria. I invite consultees' views on this particular issue.
	Unqualified (Associate) teachers
	The STRB has recommended the following:
	It is important to remember that the STRB was asked to consider unqualified teachers' pay arrangements especially because of the legal issues which had been identified regarding the length of the scale. There were also some significant concerns with regard to the spacing between the points on the scale and the ways in which those points could be awarded. I recognise that the STRB has responded to these issues and sought through its analysis to address the range of specific concerns, and I agree that change is necessary with effect from September 2008.
	These proposals would introduce significant changes to the unqualified teachers' pay arrangements and I believe that it will be important to consider them very carefully, taking into account the detailed views of consultees.
	In short, the STRB has proposed a 10-point pay spine, with the points evenly spaced in percentage terms. Whenever an unqualified teacher is appointed, an individual pay range of up to five points, or a spot salary at the top point (point 10), would be selected from the spine, depending on the teacher's skills, qualifications and experience. Pay progression would be consistent with that of main scale teachers (ie on the basis of experience and satisfactory service), but on the basis of the individual range only. Spine points could be reviewed and would not be permanent. No changes are proposed to the unqualified teacher's allowance.
	I welcome the recommendation to align progression arrangements for unqualified teachers with those of main pay scale teachers. This would explicitly enable double points for excellence for those unqualified teachers who are placed on a range, and would remove the complete freedom which currently exists for relevant bodies to award points to unqualified teachers as and when they wish. This would be a benefit as it would enable greater clarity and fairness. I also welcome the STRB's recommendations not to alter the top and bottom values of the current scale (apart from applying the recommended uplift) and to space the points evenly, so that those progressing receive consistent pay increases.
	However, it must be noted that the principle of setting ranges on a spine would be quite a new—and rather more complex—arrangement for unqualified teachers' pay. Keeping the range of progression points to a maximum of five would in principle remove the concerns about long scales and the legal issues which could arise. I am concerned that with this arrangement there could still be scope for relevant bodies to make decisions which could negate the underlying legal purpose of the change in the arrangements, since they would be able to review these decisions when they deemed this appropriate and teachers could therefore receive more progression points than desirable. I would prefer such a situation to be avoided.
	I also have particular concerns about the proposal that unqualified teachers' points would no longer be permanent. This would be unlike the current situation for unqualified teachers and also unlike the position for main and upper pay scale teachers. It is of concern that unqualified teachers could be awarded points for experience, and then potentially lose them, following a review by their school or a job move. It is true that spine points for members of the leadership group and ASTs are not permanent. But that is because ranges for these teachers are entirely post-based and progression is on the basis not of experience but of performance. Spot salaries for excellent teachers, similarly, would from 2008 be subject to review, but again this would be not on the basis of experience but on job weight. I would welcome consultees' comments on this proposed change of principle for unqualified teachers, but at present this is not an approach I am minded to accept.
	In its report, the STRB has set out in some detail the proposals with regard to unqualified teachers put forward by the Rewards and Incentives Group4, which I endorsed. The RIG evidence included a proposal to shorten the pay scale to six points, which in RIG's view would be consistent in principle with employment law. I note that the STRB reports that in oral representation sessions, most other consultees agreed with RIG's proposals. I therefore invite comments from consultees on whether, having taken into account the STRB's views and recommendations, this approach might be a preferable one.
	I welcome the recommendation for further increases in the values of the unqualified teachers' pay spine in September 2009 and 2010. The application of this recommendation would, in due course, depend on any decisions taken following the consultation process on this report and the subsequent statutory consultation, as well as on the STRB's review.
	As regards the unqualified teachers' allowance, I fully endorse the view of the STRB that the allowance should not be used for recruitment and retention purposes. In addition to enhancing the statutory guidance as the STRB has recommended, it may be appropriate to look at clarifying the criteria for the award of the allowance in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document itself, in line with the sort of approach adopted in respect of Teaching and Learning Responsibility payments (which are exclusively for qualified teachers).
	I agree with the STRB that the allowance should be capable of review, and consider that the ability to review (which could require appropriate safeguarding measures) would be a logical consequence of the enhanced clarity in the criteria for the award of the allowance which I believe may be necessary. I invite consultees' thoughts on all these points.
	I wish to highlight for consultees also the STRB's suggestion that the term "unqualified teacher" should cease to be used; its comments expressed in the body of its report that the term is misleading, negative and potentially demotivating; and its alternative suggestion of "associate teacher". Although legally unobjectionable, as the term "unqualified teacher" simply means those teachers who do not have England and Wales qualified teacher status, I note the STRB's views. I am willing therefore to accept this change of term, or to consider other terms, but I should also welcome consultees' views on whether a change would on balance be beneficial and welcomed.
	Lastly, and on a separate point, I note that the STRB's recommendations for 2008 move us away from a system where pay points are no longer, as has traditionally been the case, divisible by three. I have no objection to this change, especially since the teachers' pay system already allows in some respects for payments to be made on another basis, but I would invite consultees' views on whether this is in any sense an issue.
	1 Cm 6164, March 2004.
	2 Cm 6663, December 2005.
	3 The criteria will be the nature of the work to be undertaken and the degree of challenge of the role.
	4 ASCL, ATL, DCSF, NAHT, NASUWT, NEOST and PAT.

Transport Innovation Fund

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport (Rosie Winterton) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	In July 2005, in a Written Statement to the House, local authorities were invited to bid for £18million of "pump-priming" development funding to bring forward packages of schemes that combined better local public transport with hard demand management measures, such as road pricing. In November 2005 and May 2006 my predecessors announced that we were awarding pump-priming for the transport innovation fund (TIF) to 10 areas.
	In December 2007 we invited local authorities developing TIF proposals to bid for a small amount of remaining funding available in the current financial year. This funding was targeted at those areas that have formally submitted proposals and are providing further information to support the assessment by DfT and in parallel are developing elements of the proposal while waiting for a programme entry decision; or those that have submitted an outline proposal for a TIF package for which there is a political commitment to working up and submitting a business case during 2008-09.
	I am today announcing funding for three areas. We are making up to £1 million available to Cambridgeshire, up to £1.5 million to Greater Manchester, and up to £675,000 to the West of England Partnership (covering Bristol City Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, North Somerset Council, and South Gloucestershire Council). This award means that these areas can continue to take forward proposals for improved public transport including local road pricing schemes.
	I should be clear that receipt of this pump-priming funding is no guarantee that an authority will be successful in bidding for the main transport innovation fund. We are, however, committed to working closely with the successful authorities to deliver the work programmes set out in their pump-priming bids and to support future decisions on the main transport innovation fund.
	We will also work with other local authorities developing proposals for improved local transport and demand management and this decision does not affect their ability to bid for substantive TIF funding in the future.

Traumatic Brain Injury

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In the light of parliamentary and public interest in traumatic brain injuries (TBI) arising in current conflicts, I am pleased to report the status of work being conducted on this topic by the Defence Medical Services.
	TBI are seen in both military and civilian populations, occurring when the skull and brain are exposed to acute changes in velocity such as road traffic accidents and contact sports, as well as exposure to blasts and other concussions to the head. Severe and moderate cases are generally readily identifiable to medical practitioners and will be managed by established clinical and rehabilitation programmes. The Defence Medical Services already routinely screens all personnel with multiple injuries admitted to the MoD's main rehabilitation centre at Headley Court for symptoms and signs of brain injury, and where necessary special investigations are undertaken to identify the nature and degree of any structural damage to the brain.
	However, mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) can be less easy to recognise and diagnose. It may result from relatively minor head injuries, and symptoms can be both wide-ranging and delayed in their onset, as well as being similar to those of other recognised disorders such as post-concussion syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
	Recognising the need for further research, MoD's surgeon general initiated a project in June 2007 to investigate the historical, clinical and laboratory context of mTBI and make recommendations concerning future management, clinical care, education and research. The project team consulted widely with clinical and research experts within the military and civilian sectors both in the UK and overseas, principally the US.
	The project noted that civilian evidence suggests that 80 per cent of TBI is mild and 80 per cent of cases will be symptom free within three months of exposure. The project concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the operational capability of the UK's Armed Forces was being affected by mTBI. The Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM) has identified 585 cases of casualties with traumatic brain injury (whether mild, moderate or severe) out of some 36,000 total attendances for any medical condition to deployed UK operational emergency departments between early 2003 and November 2007—the majority of which would be for minor ailments with no requirement for admission or, in many cases, further treatment. This represents 1.6 per cent of all medical presentations during the period, and 0.5 per cent of the deployed UK military population.
	The project has provided a baseline for further work that is already in hand. A four-level protocol is being established by staff at Headley Court for the diagnosis and treatment of mTBI cases. Guidance has been promulgated to all defence general practitioners advising them about mTBI and the treatment options available. Education material has been developed, aimed at all personnel on deployed operations, and an assessment questionnaire is being introduced to help medical staff identify mTBI cases at the time of injury and to enhance surveillance and research.
	Research is also continuing into such areas as identification and diagnosis of mTBI cases, and also their prevention. Throughout our research we are in touch with United States developments and collaborating with its researchers as appropriate.

Youth Justice Board

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families the appointment of Frances Done CBE as chair of the Youth Justice Board. The appointment will be for three years from 1 February 2008 to 1 February 2011.
	The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is an executive non-departmental public body established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to monitor the operation and performance of the youth justice system and to identify and disseminate good practice to prevent offending by children and young people. The board is also responsible for commissioning services for young people under 18 who are sentenced and remanded to secure facilities.